Talk:Watershed stroke

Non-peer review
The article looks really great. The writing is clear and not wordy, and it is clear that you have gained a comprehensive understanding of the subject from your research. The only suggestion I have at this point is that you probably don't need to describe strokes in as much detail as you do in the introduction. Try to pare it down to only the information that is absolutely critical to understanding Watershed strokes. Other than that, it looks like you guys are closing in on the final product. Well done. Stempera (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Response from Watershed Stroke team: We have taken out the detailed description of strokes in the introduction. The introduction now gives more of a summary of the overall article. Thanks for your input. JaFlick (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Category 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Might I suggest adding the category:stroke at the foot of the article (but before the interwiki links, such Spanish & German. I just noticed there are none.), thus:

You are then entitled to remove the tag at the bottom of the article saying that there are no categories.

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

'''Response from team: Thank you so much for your suggestion; we have added the stroke category at the foot of the article. Ellenmcmahon (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review
Hey guys, I read through your Watershed Stroke article and I thought it was really well written. I also found it to be very organized; it flows really well from section to section. I do have a couple of suggestions for the article. In the section of "Initial Symptoms", you may want to specify the acronym of FAST by stating that F = Facial weakness, A = Arm weakness, S = Speech difficulty, and T = Time to act. It makes it a little easier to understand for most readers. There was one part in the last section, "Current and Future Research" where you may have made a typo when trying to bullet "CLEVSRKNC Peptide" and "Liposomal Drug Delivery". I noticed asterisks in front both points, but I was not sure if you were trying use a bullet format or you were using the asterisks as some form of reference.

Other than those two suggestions, I do not think anything else really needs to be changed. All of your hyperlinks and references seemed to be used correctly, and from the number of references you have, it seems like your group put much effort in order to write this article. Keep up the good work. (Colehawk92 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC))

Response from Watershed Stroke team: '''Thank you for taking the time to read through our article and provide feedback. We elaborated on FAST by not only explaining the acronym, but by also briefly describing each negative presentation. This should help readers better understand the initial symptoms. The error in the last section, "Current and Future Research", were supposed to be "CLEVSRKNC Peptide" and "Liposomal Drug Delivery" sub-sections. We made the correction. Thank you again. Fahertch (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review (2)
This article is very well written in that after a concept is mentioned, it is concisely defined or described. While I was reading, it was very clear to me the direction in which the article was heading. If ever I was unclear about a concept or definition, I could usually find an explanation immediately following. It was also helpful (from a reader’s standpoint) that with each new heading, a brief overview of the concepts that would be addressed was given. It seems as if readers of many different backgrounds regarding stroke and neuroscience would benefit from reading this article.

Some suggestions: perhaps you could flesh-out the facts and statistics section. Only having two bullet points seems somewhat insufficient to warrant a separate heading. Also, people typically enjoy reading facts/stats because it is easier to perceive the presence of a topic/illness when you assign a number or percentage to it. Under the Symptoms heading, perhaps you could change the word choice of “further symptoms” (for some reason “further” seems like the wrong word). Something like “secondary” or “progressive” may sound better.

Overall- very impressive and concise! Campanelli514 (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Watershed Stroke team: '''Thank you so much for your comments! We took your advice and changed "Further symptoms" to "Progressive symptoms" and also moved the facts and statistics into the introduction, where they seemed to fit better, rather than keeping them in their own section. Ellenmcmahon (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review (3)
In the second paragraph of the introduction, you appear to have unnecessary capitalization with “Cerebral Vascular Accident”. From a brief look at other sources, it does not seem as though this needs to be capitalized.

The article is very well organized. However, I do not think that the “facts and statistics” section fits well within other sections that have been more specificlly titled. It seems to be a bit too broad, overarching, and general. I would advise that you either find a way to expand this section or combine it in other areas of the article.

Under the subsection “initial symptoms”, the sentence structure is set up so that “quickly dialing 911” is described as a symptom. This is probably not a symptom of the stroke but is instead an action that should be done when someone recognizes the symptoms.

You may want to include more hyperlinks early on in the article to provide references for some of the medical and the more advanced vocabulary that some readers may be unfamiliar with, (like ischemia for example). The hyperlinks also get a little light towards the end of the article as well, in regards to the treatment and future research sections.

You have succeeded in including and citing many relevant sources and have done a great job in editing this stub. Good luck and keep up the great work! (Coopersk (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC))

Response from Watershed Stroke team: '''Thank you for your input. We have changed the unnecessary capitalization of of cerebral vascular accident in the second paragraph of the introduction. Also, we have addressed the facts and statistics section by taking your advice; we put it at the end of the introduction. Finally, we will continue to include hyperlinks. JaFlick (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review (4)
Enjoyed the article very much, I thought it was very well researched and well put together, so any questions I have with the article aren't going to be too major. There was some use of medical "jargon" that is recommended against in the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. For example the term infarct, which might be replaceable with a more common term. This was probably mentioned by others, but their seems to be some confusion over the use of FAST in the symptoms section. The T of FAST, isn't really a symptom, but a reminder that treatment is needed as soon as possible should the symptoms arise. In further symptoms section, the mention that the opposite side of the body is affected by damage to one side of the brain might need a little explanation. The first two cranial nerves originate from the cerebrum, so you might want to mention that not all cranial nerves would be affected to an infarction in the brain stem. A wiki-link or explanation of the functions of the cranial nerves might help relate the symptoms listed in the next sentence and provide more flow to that section of the article. The word damage is used multiple times in the article, sometime with out some sort of context or with slightly different connotations, another more descriptive term could be used to provide more detail. A fair amount of specific blood vessels are mentioned (ICA) which would be a good idea to wiki-link. The treatment section provides good information, but I was a little confused by the it being titled Treatment, it seemed more like prevention, unless I'm just reading it wrong. Beyond that stuff I thought the article was great. Baumannd (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

'''Response from Watershed Stroke team: Hey, thanks for your input. We have updated some of wiki-links and medical jargon. JaFlick (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review (5)
It would strengthen your article if you removed the direct quote that opens your article and put it in your own words. You can probably remove the discussion of ischemic versus hemorrhagic stroke in your introduction, as it is discussed in length in the "stroke" link within wikipedia. The facts section would probably also be better placed within your introduction rather than in a section on its own.

If the information is available, it would be helpful to have a section that outlines the differences between watershed strokes and other types of CVAs. This would be good especially if their were distinct symptoms that set watershed strokes apart or possibly prevention/treatment given the uniqueness in location of the brain.

Also, an image of what would be considered a "watershed" area would help the readers understand what region(s) of the brain are being referred to. Besides that, there was a minor typo in the carotid angioplasty section in which catheter was misspelled. Overall this was an excellent article. Easy to read and provided a great deal of information. Good job! Polvinod (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

'''Response from Watershed Stroke team: We removed the quote at the beginning of the article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. We also incorporated the facts section into the introduction. We have decided to leave the few sentences in the introduction about the differences in strokes just to clarify which type of stroke a watershed stroke is.'''

'''Furthermore, we have included images that show a diagram to better describe the location of a watershed stroke. JaFlick (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review 6
I think the article is really well written and interesting to read. I agree that more pictures, possibly of the waterstroke areas in the brain, would be helpful for readers who might not know the specific locations in the brain you are referring to.

Something I also noticed was the entire treatment section didn't have any references and could be expanded to provide details such as the success rates of these procedures or the ability to prevent future problems.

Lastly, I think removing the divisions between the symptoms would be helpful and possibly adding more detail to this section. Currently the symptoms are more generalized to stroke. I think by incorporating the different types of infarcts and the locations they correspond to would be helpful to expand this section. That might help in specifying symptoms to the certain areas of the brain in more detail. For example, anterior waterstroke infarcts affect the fronto-parasagital wedge, posterior water stroke infarcts affect the parieto-temporo-occipital wedge, and IWS affects the coronoa radiata and the centrum semiovale. I also came across an article talking about the connection between Capgras syndrome and Fergli syndrome with cerebral watershed infarct that I thought might be interesting to include.

Great article so far! Kierak33 (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

'''Response from Watershed Stroke team: Thanks for your comments. In response to your and others input, we have included images that show a diagram of the brain so users can better understand the location of a watershed stroke. JaFlick (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review 7
Very well written article! I too was going to mention adding an additional picture or two. With that it might be interesting to talk about the molecular basis of neuronal damage that occurs during the stroke (kind of like the information we learned in class); or even just a diagram might help people get a better idea of what makes stroke such a severe health problem. Also I found an article talking about how this specific type of stroke is morel likely to occur after cardiac surgery, this might be an interesting piece of information to include in your article. Here is the link: http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/37/9/2306.full

Also, you could take the information from the Facts and Statistics section and instead put this information into the intro. I think it would be a great way to further grab the reader's attention to your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenv (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Breenv (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Response from Watershed Stroke team: '''Thank you for taking the time to read through our article and provide feedback. As you mentioned, we included additional images to help explain key concepts. Per your suggestion, and in line with Wiki Introduction standards, we moved the Facts and Statistics information to the Introduction. It definitely will help grab readers attention at the beginning of the article. In terms of the molecular basis of neuronal damage, a lot of that is included in the Wikipedia Stroke page, linked within the article. Specifically, there is a pathophysiology section of that article. Adding more molecular information might distract the article fundamentally to a difference topic. We do agree though that the American Heart Association article you provided in very interesting, so it is now included/explained in the Current and Future Research of this article. Thank you again for your suggestions. Fahertch (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)'''

Peer Review 8
Hey. I saw that someone commented on your introduction, but I think it was really well written. The information is completely relevant and I like the little extra detail since it helps put everything in perspective. I noticed one typo at the end where you misspelled borderzone as boarderzone. I would remove "Simply" from the first sentence of Derivation and Terminology. There was also a typo in the ICA Occlusions section where you misspelled hypotension at the end of the first paragraph. Overall your article is extremely thorough and your group used a lot of different sources which is really impressive. I thought the article was great despite a few minor errors here and there.

Gshan12 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.248.161 (talk)

(Gshan12 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

'''Response from Watershed Stroke team: Thanks for reading our article carefully. We fixed the first typo of "borderzone" in the introduction and removed "simply" from the first sentence of the Derivation and Terminology section. We also fixed the typo in the ICA Occlusion section. JaFlick (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)'''